Monday, 22 August 2011

(pillow)Case of the week (34/11) – 48

Instead of trying to catch up and antedating all the missing Cases, I’m just resuming where I left off, starting from this week.

I do have to fill in one gab between Cases 60 and 53, so for those I’ll make an exception and post them as second post each Monday….

Still with me? 

For study purposes it is no great matter in which order the cases are read, so I feel confident that you’ll catch up. Just read the Cases and don’t worry about the order.

Here we go….

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

(pillow)Case picture

Rule 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties
to Prepare

Part 5 of the racing rules aims to protect a boat from miscarriage of justice, not to provide loopholes for protestees. A protestee has a duty to protect herself by acting reasonably before a hearing.
Summary of the Facts

Two close-hauled port-tack boats, W and L, were approaching a windward mark to be left to port. W became overlapped inside L five to six hull lengths from the mark and hailed L for mark-room to round it. L refused, saying that W was not entitled to mark-room on a beat. W passed the mark on the wrong side, circled back, rounded the mark leaving it to port, displayed a protest flag, and informed L that a protest would be lodged.

The protest committee found as fact that W became overlapped inside L in proper time. L was disqualified under rule 18.2(b) and appealed. The appeal alleged that, contrary to rule 63.2, L’s helmsman became aware that a hearing was being held only when he was told to attend it; he was refused permission to read the protest outside the hearing room but was required to read it while the hearing was in progress; and he was not given a reasonable time to prepare a defence. Further, the appeal alleged that no evidence was presented in the hearing to establish that W had become overlapped inside L in proper time.
The protest committee commented upon the appeal as follows: the time of the hearing was posted on the official notice board; W’s protest was lodged with the race office and was available for reading for well over an hour prior to that time; her helmsman informed L’s helmsman that the protest had been lodged; he made no effort to prepare a defence; and he had to be summoned from the club’s dining room when the protest committee, the other party, and the witnesses were assembled and ready to proceed.


L’s appeal is dismissed for the reasons given by the protest committee in its comments. L’s helmsman knew that his boat was being protested, and it was his duty to protect himself by acting reasonably, which included seeking out W’s protest form, reading it, and using the ample time available to prepare his defence.
The national authority is satisfied that the protest committee’s conclusion that W became overlapped in time was drawn from the facts the committee found based on evidence that it heard. Those facts are not appealable (see rule 70.1).

RYA 1980/5


That’s telling you!

No dooladida, No pint in the bar, get with the program, already.

The majority of sailors think the race is over when they cross the finish line. Nothing is further from the truth. A prudent competitor will always check the notice board, specially if he was in a situation that might warrant it. See if there’s a protest and prepare a defence.

Rule 63.3(b) is also used quit frequently and then the next day everybody is most upset about the DSQ.
Like I said, no procrastinating, read the effing board!

Here's the link to the second ((gab)pillow) Case of the Week: Case 60


Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...